Perfectly targeted advertising would be perfectly worthless

Another angle on the targeted advertising problem.

First of all, I could target you to sell a product
or service with 100% accuracy. Just walk up to your
house and offer to clean your gutters.

Naturally, you probably wouldn't take me up on
it, because you'd probably think I was just casing
your house for a burglary, but you get the idea.
People get in your face and try to sell you stuff
all the time. And, because you have no context or a
signal of the value they can provide, you tell them
no thank you. (You are polite, aren't you?)

The more targeted that advertising gets, the
less well it carries out its essential role
of sending a signal, and the more it's like an
unknown guy on the porch mumbling about if you want
to buy something. (More detail on this subject: Ad
targeting: better is worse?)

Which brings us to a must-read article
by Michael Wolff, on Technology
Review. "At the heart of the Internet business
is one of the great business fallacies of our time:
that the Web, with all its targeting abilities,
can be a more efficient, and hence more profitable,
advertising medium than traditional media."

Exactly. The more targeted that advertising
is, the less effective that it is.
Internet technology can be more efficient at
targeting, but the closer it gets to perfectly
tracking users, the less profitable it has to become.

The profits are in advertising that informs,
entertains, or creates a spectacle—because
that's what sends a signal. Targeting is a dead end.
Maybe "Do Not Track" will save online advertising
from itself.